1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates broadly to a method and apparatus for improving aspects of information security, information delivery, and information dissemination as well as information storage. In alternative embodiments, the present invention may also relate to a method, apparatus, or system for constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing coded symbols or parts of coded symbols by means of encodation or decodation methods, optionally involving encryption, hashed-type, or other methods of encodation, and master communication systems supporting the same.
2. Description of the Related Art
Since their invention in the early 1950's, bar codes have accelerated the flow of products and information throughout the global business community. Coupled with the improvements in data accuracy that accompanies the adoption of bar code technology over keyboard data entry, bar code systems are now critical elements in conducting business in the global economy.
As discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,631,843, optically encoded indicia, such as bar codes are well known in the art but limitations exist. Today, bar codes are used in just about every type of business application: point-of-sale (POS), retail, warehousing, etc. Bar codes are printed on many types of alternative substrates, individual items, and on various containers enclosing a number of items. Bar codes carry information encoded into bars and spaces of various widths, arranged in predetermined patterns. The bars and spaces are made up of unit elements called modules.
A module has a specified height and width. Width is usually called the horizontal dimension of the module. When a laser scanner scans a bar code, bar code modules are usually crossed by the scanning beam typically along its horizontal dimension, but many bar codes may be scanned omni-directionally.
The relative size of a bar coded label is determined by the type of coding used, as are the actual sizes of the label's individual bars and spaces. The size of the bar code is also directly proportional to the amount of information that is stored in that bar code. Conversely, the amount of information is constrained by the size limitations on the bar code. In sum, bar codes are scanned via a bar code scanning system, and the encoded information gets extracted and decoded by the system's processing means.
Bar code reading can be accomplished by scanning across the bar code with a laser scanner, a wand, a charged coupled device (CCD), or some other solid-state imaging device (SSI). Bar code reading systems are known in the art and have been disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,251,798; 4,360,798; 4,369,361; 4,387,297; 4,409,470 and 4,460,120.
The newest symbologies include options to encode multiple languages within the same symbol, and can even allow (through deliberate redundancies) reconstruction of data if the symbol is damaged.
At the last count, there were over one hundred (100) defined and known bar code symbologies. Unfortunately, only a handful of these symbologies are in current use, and fewer still are widely known and used internationally.
A number of different one-dimensional bar code symbologies (alternatively called or referred to as 1D-encodation schemes or 1D symbologies) exist. These symbologies include, but are not necessarily limited to: UPC-A, UPC-E, EAN-8, EAN-13 and UCC/EAN-128 and/or other common-type and known 1D bar codes as defined by the representative governing councils, and standards defining organizations. This may also include applicable Application Identifiers, UCC Coupon Value Codes and HIBC UCC/EAN-128 Secondary Input Data formats encoded in UCC/EAN-128, among others known in the 1D bar code symbology field.
It should be noted that the Uniform Code Council, Inc. (UCC) and EAN International are voluntary standards organizations that together manage the EAN/UCC system. The Automatic Identification Manufacturers Association (AIM) and AIDC are also standards defining organizations that set global standards for multiple facets of technology. Unfortunately, traditional 1D bar codes, due to their low information density storage capacity, can carry only a limited amount of information, on the order of ten to twenty letters or digits assigned under relative standards to general-level type information. This general-level type information is usually an index to a particular file or a general database where general-level information (country code, manufacture's name, type of product, UCC identification, etc.) is stored regarding a manufacturer or type of product.
Since the inception of retail bar code scanning, the identification of products using machine-readable bar codes has enhanced the efficiency of the supply chain, and the networking of voluntary opt-in supply-chain partners, in all business sectors.
By using bar codes as a “pointer” to an accessible database field, machine-readable bar codes have the ability to quickly and accurately identify product and other previously-entered coded information, for example sales coupons relating to a particularly item.
Unfortunately, bar codes as “dumb” vehicles for information have the limitation of being held to a space requirement that puts a ceiling on the amount of information that can be contained in the bar code.
It should be understood, that a conventional bar code symbol is a ‘one-dimensional’ symbol, in that the bars and the spaces extend only in a single direction and ‘two-dimensional’ bar codes have been proposed with various concerns noted below.
With the advent of two-dimensional (2-D) encodation schemes (alternatively called 2D symbologies or 2D encodation schemes) for bar codes such as: DataMatrix, PDF-417, Reduced Space Symbology (RSS) and Composite Symbology (CS), the amount of information that may be placed into the physical bar code (within a smaller footprint) increased.
Unfortunately 2-D bar code use (and 2D symbology use) in the retail sector is limited by the requirements dictated by the Uniform Code Council (UCC) standard symbology for retail, UPC-A bar codes. The UPC-A standard had a 12 digit, numeric only identifier that breaks down the classification of a product to for items, namely: (1) country code, (2) manufacturer identifier, (3) manufacturer's product identifier and (4) a check digit. Thus, when scanned, a UPC-A bar code points to a line item in a database corresponding to that product and the line item includes only these four (4) items of product information. Where a UPC-A code was extended indefinitely in size (for example 20 centimeters (cm)) additional data may be stored, this adaptation has note been adopted due to the impermissible size concerns and inability to manage a code data base in such a manner.
Some 1-dimensional (1-D or 1D) bar codes are referred to as belonging to the (n, k) family. A code of (n, k) type uniquely represents characters by a string of n modules containing “n” bars and “k” spaces. The UPC symbology is an example of a (7, 2) code, i.e., n=7 and k=2. This type of 1-D symbology bar code or EAN/USC symbology is ideal for identifying products sold at a point of sale (POS). As will be noted, this code is designed to be especially tolerant of differing printing methods and allows the bar code to be scanned omni-directionally, speeding up the scanning process, but with the price of severely limiting the amount of data.
Since many retailers have not purchased 2-D or 2D bar code scanners, the use of 2-D bar codes in the retail sector provides an additional limitation and risks confusion. As a consequence, 2-D readers and codes are commonly relegated to use in the manufacture of small items that required a machine readable bar code (like electronics), that before 2D bar codes could not be marked with the standard 1-D bar codes like UCC/EAN Code 128, Code 39, or Interleaved 2 of 5 Codes. The Interleaved 2 of 5 Codes include (1) a quite zone, (2) a start character, (3) the encoding data, (4) a stop character, and (5) a trailing quiet zone, in addition to the information noted above.
As will be generally described, two-dimensional (2-D) bar codes carry more information per substrate area than linear one-dimensional (1-D) bar codes.
Some two-dimensional (2-D) bar code symbologies are just an extension of one-dimensional bar codes, in that they are formed by stacking rows of one-dimensional bar codes and typically placing a horizontal line between each row. In order to keep the same vertical dimension of the overall bar code, the height of each row is made smaller than the normal height of a one-dimensional bar code. An example of this type of code is discussed generally in U.S. Pat. No. 4,794,239.
2-D symbols or codes are called two-dimensional because the data in the code is contained in both the horizontal direction (like 1-D/linear codes) and additionally in the vertical direction.
A number of different two-dimensional 2D symbologies exist. Some of the symbologies are: Aztec Code, Code 16K, Code 49, Data Matrix and Maxi-Code, etc.
PDF-417 symbology is one type of ‘stacked’ two-dimensional bar code symbology used when needed to encode a greater amount of information within a limited amount of space, thus giving generating an even higher information density encodation scheme. An example of this type of symbology is discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,304,786.
When a bar code is scanned by a laser scanner or a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) scanner, the scanner's bar code processing means must be able to determine the relative position of each scanned codeword (the “codeword” being the numeric value of a 1D or optionally a 2D bar code). Unfortunately, not only must the scanner be able to properly decode and parse the information contained in the particular codeword, the scanner must also determine where the codeword fits in relation to other code words within its row and with respect to other rows of code words.
Being able to implicitly encode the size or version of the bar code label while eliminating the explicit version information code words will increase the label data storage efficiency.
One type of 2D symbology, “Matrix Type codes” (Maxi-Code, Data Matrix etc.) codes provide this type of high information density storage capacity in a reasonable size, but are also susceptible to inter-row cross-talk problems during use. As an additional problem, Matrix codes are not decodable by a laser scanner (must therefore be read by a more sophisticated and costly optical scanner) and therefore may not be used in many laser—scanning applications. In sum, the use of 2D symbology is growing very slowly due to large infrastructure costs, the cross-talk problem noted above, and other concerns commonly known.
There remains, however, an increasing need for machine-readable symbols that contain more information than conventional bar code symbols. These types of symbols are generally referred to as Reduced Space Symbology (RSS) and Composite Symbology (CS) symbols and should be understood as also being either types of 1D or 2D symbologies depending upon their actual design (as will be discussed below), and may be included in references hereafter to 1D or 2D symbologies as will be noted.
In detail, the first of these new symbologies, Reduced Space Symbologies (RSS), consists of a “high density” 1-D or Linear bar code, designed to encode standard UCC/EAN Item Numbers-up to 14 digits in a reduced-size footprint, resulting in a higher “data capacity” than existing UCC/EAN bar codes. Several variants of RSS exist, including Limited RSS, Stacked RSS and Expanded RSS. Expanded RSS includes the ability to encode limited amounts of additional data beyond the basic UCC/EAN Item Number.
There are four different versions of the RSS family, each with slightly different features. Each version is designed to contain the UCC/EAN's designated Global Trading Identification Number (GTIN).
RSS-14 encodes the full 14 digit UCC/EAN Item Number in a linear symbol that can be scanned rasteringly or omni-directionally by suitably programmed scanners. See FIG. 1
RSS-14 LIMITED is a 1D linear symbol that encodes a 14 digit UCC/EAN Item Number with a Packaging Indicator/Logistical Variant of zero or one as a prefix to the following number. It is designed for use on small items where label space is horizontally restricted, and will not be scanned at point of sale (POS). See FIG. 2.
RSS-14 STACKED is a variation of the RSS-14 symbology that is vertically truncated and stacked in two rows, and is used where label space is vertically restricted, and particularly on items that are not intended to be scanned at point of sale. See FIG. 3.
RSS EXPANDED encodes a UCC/EAN Item Number plus supplementary element strings such as weight and “best use before” date in a linear symbol that can be scanned omni-directionally by suitably programmed point-of-sale (POS) scanners. RSS Expanded can also be printed in multiple rows as a stacked symbol when the normal symbol would be too wide for the narrow applications. RSS Expanded has a maximum data capacity of 41 alphanumeric or 74 numeric characters. See FIG. 4.
Any member of the RSS family can be printed as a stand-alone linear symbol or as the Linear (1-D) Component of a Composite (2-D) Symbol.
The second new symbology, Composite Symbology (CS), consists of a 1-D symbol (RSS, UPC/EAN or UCC/EAN-128) paired with, and optionally in some cases ‘electronically’ and logically ‘linked’ to a 2-D symbol printed ‘in the immediate area’ of the 1D symbol. The 2-D symbol is either a PDF-417 symbol, or a UCC/EAN specific variant of Micro-PDF-417. Micro-PDF-417 is the version of PDF-417 designed for small item marking applications (small size), for example in semiconductor and electronic component manufacture. Collectively reference to a Composite Symbology hereafter may refer to a linked or non-linked/unlinked Composite Symbology depending upon the reference as noted herein.
In a conventional Composite Symbol (CS), the 1-D bar code is always immediately present and contains primary product identification information. Several types of Composite Symbols (CS) have been organizationally defined. The data capacity of the Composite (2-D) Component ranges from 56 digits to a maximum of 2361 digits.
As noted, present Composite Symbology (CS) technology combines a 1-D bar code with a high-capacity 2-D symbol based on PDF-417 or Micro-PDF in a single code printed together. In CS, the 2-D symbol is referred to as the Composite Component (CC) whilst the 1-D symbol is known as the Linear Component (LC).
There are three variants of the Composite Component (CC) each with a different data capacity: (A) CC-A has a data capacity of up to 56 digits and uses a UCC/EAN defined variant of Micro-PDF. (B) CC-B has a data capacity of up to 338 digits and uses standard Micro-PDF with a UCC/EAN reserved codeword. (C) CC-C has a data capacity of up to 2361 digits and uses a standard PDF-417 with a UCC/EAN reserved codeword.
A key concept within the Composite Symbology (CS) is ‘linking.’ The Composite Component (CC) of a Composite Symbol (CS) is printed in immediate conjunction with or in immediate reference with a 1-D bar code symbol, (the Linear Component (LC)).
In ‘linking,’ the 1-D (LC) symbol always contains the primary product identification. The conventional Composite Component (CC), always contains a special codeword indicating that the data is in accordance with UCC/EAN standards; e.g., (a) that a 1-D symbol is also present (required to read), and (b) that the 2-D bar code is “linked” to the 1-D symbol.
In conventional CS, “where possible” (e.g., optionally), the 1-D bar code also contains a “link,” indicating that a Composite Component (CC) is present and that the 1-D bar code is linked thereto. Here, “where possible” reflects the fact that while some 1-D/LC symbologies, such as RSS, can support such a link, other 1-D/LC symbologies such as UPC/EAN and UCC/EAN-128, cannot. Depending on the application, the 1D bar code used within the Composite Symbol (CS) can be RSS, UPC/EAN or UCC/EAN-128.
Unfortunately, some restrictions exist using the CS format. For example, RSS can be used only with CC-A and CC-B symbologies. As further explanation, the following examples and symbols are included.
Example 1, Composite Symbology (CS) with RSS-14 limited symbology. See FIG. 5.
Example 2, Composite Symbol (CS) with RSS-14 stacked symbology. See FIG. 6.
Example 3, Composite Symbol (CS) with UCC/EAN-128 type symbology. See FIG. 7.
Example 4, Composite Symbol (CS) with UPC-A type symbology. See FIG. 8.
Additionally, Composite Symbology (CS) concepts are also applicable to other symbologies, including RSS, RSS-14 Truncated, RSS-14 Expanded, RSS-14 Stacked Omni-directional, UPC-E, EAN-13, EAN-8, with the corresponding Composite variants: CC-A/B, CC-A/B (14), CC-C and CC-C (14).
In sum, conventional Composite Symbology (CS), which incorporates a 1-D linear component with a 2-D Composite Component, is a new class of symbology designed to address applications that are not being met by current technology solution sets. Composite Symbology (CS) should be understood as a combination of two encodation schemes, generally a 1D and 2D scheme.
Unfortunately, where new 1-D, 2-D, or CS technology is created, infringers, copyists, counterfeiters, and other criminals rapidly attempt to duplicate or copy a particular bar code to gain legitimacy and move their goods into or through a legitimate means and into the opt-in manufacturer-supplier-customer network.
For example, a bar code for a particular type of medicine is generated by a manufacturer (ex. Aspirin). The bar code links to a data base and includes information regarding generally a manufacture, type of product, description of the product and other “higher-order information” (not specific-item information, as will be described). This same bar code is used on one-hundred (100) bottles of Aspirin placed in a single box with five-hundred (500) other bottles and placed on a pallet with five-hundred (500) other boxes and sent to a shipping agent. The shipping agent looses the one box and reports the loss to the manufacturer.
In this example, the box of Aspirin was stolen by one who copies a previously legitimate bar code from the separate legitimate box, re-labels the stolen goods, and ships the now re-labeled goods to a pharmacy. Here, because the linked data base system can only track a product by “higher-order information” and cannot track a product by a designated specific-item information e.g., individual item/bottle/dose/pill (and because the counterfeit bar code is therefore legitimate), the pharmacy when scanning the counterfeit/stolen goods cannot detect the error, the manufacture cannot detect the error, and the pharmacy sells the stolen/counterfeit goods to the public.
It is estimated that approximately 30 billion dollars, or about 10% of the entire world pharmaceutical drug market is “lost” annually (via theft, physical loss, counterfeiting, improper returns, legitimate returns, or damage). According to the FDA and other government agencies, there is an immediate need for a solution to prevent counterfeit drug labels and products because the largest markets for counterfeit drugs include the US and European Union countries.
The FDA generally and very broadly suggests, via its anti-counterfeit drug task force, that manufactures adopt an anti-counterfeiting solution having the ability to (1) incorporate all drug products with at least two types of validated anti-counterfeiting technology, into labeling at the point of manufacture (with at least one of these technologies being “covert” or requiring special equipment or knowledge for detection and the other being “overt”, or obvious that an anti-counterfeiting method is being used); (2) create some type of broad electronic data base for a drug and biologics tracking purposes, (3) achieve the goal of pedigree requirements by phasing in a system for an electronic pedigree for all drugs and biologics; and (4) that the authentication trail result in a drug pedigree, capable of specific origin, point of manufacture, contents information, date, lot number to an individual item number.
Various anti-counterfeiting steps and other measures have been taken in an attempt to meet these very broad and indefinite FDA suggestions. Unfortunately, each step requires an additional change in the manufacturing or review process or has various negative drawbacks related to cost.
In one step taken to meet the FDA suggestions, Electronic Product Codes (EPC™) have been recently created. EPC™ is a new type of designated alpha-numeric code that operates like the old bar code symbologies, in that when used as a coded identifier and scanned, links to a line in a database, in many cases an internet-maintained database. The EPC™ identifier consists of a string of characters containing information about a specific product or higher order information, i.e.: manufacturer, object classification, and other identifiers specific to an industry and in some rare cases, and a unique serial number for each designated item.
The motivation for the new EPC™ system is to provide a single code uniquely identifying a product, whether by unit, or at any desired packaging level, from its manufacture through the supply chain to delivery, by a system of readers and online databases that are updated regularly as that item(s) moves through the supply chain.
The EPC™ system is linked with, and transmitted by, the RFID tag technology system, either in 64 or 96 bit configurations. As a consequence, the EPC™ system unfortunately necessitates all of the software, hardware, and RFID configurations included in an integrated superstructure, as well as being dependent on the unproven online database for tracking and reporting.
As noted, one other anti-counterfeiting proposal includes the use of RFID technology.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) has been touted as the successor to the bar code because of its ability to store much information in a small button or wired label, and have that information read by out-of-line-of-sight readers, in either singularly or in multiple configurations employing RF signal receivers. Read/Write RFID tags may also allow the ‘tagged’ information to be electronically updated. Several drawbacks to the RFID system include the expensive, and the interconnected and integrated infrastructure necessary to support the utilization of RFID as a vehicle for the transportation of information.
One benefit of an RFID-enable good, is that the good may be returned without receipt because the stores' data base will store who made the purchase, allowing a customer with photo 1D to return the item without the receipt.
Alternative RFID benefits have been formulated, for example, refrigerators may be programmed to automatically tally goods and order deliveries of replacements without human intervention. Additional benefits are proposed for those who are hearing or sight impaired allowing audible tracking of a necessary drug or the audible announcement of where the item is. To this end, a major retailer, Wal-Mart, has requested that all goods supplied to be “RFID compliant” by January 2005. Unfortunately, many suppliers, and indeed Wal-Mart itself, may not meet this requirement.
As noted earlier, the planned EPC™ process necessitates all of the software, hardware and RFID configurations included in an integrated infrastructure, as well as being dependent upon an unproven online RFID linked database for tracking and reporting.
Additionally, since RFID technology employs tiny RF (Radio Frequency) signals collected by receivers, the location, type, and positioning of the receivers is critical. Many shippers, transporters, manufacturers, and retailers employ unshielded electrical and data lines throughout their facilities. Electrical lines (particularly high voltage lines) and data lines (particularly co-axial lines), produce an electromagnetic spectrum that interferes with the tiny RF signals, preventing RFID tag use or causing false RFID readings. Consequently, before efficient and secure RFID use is achieved, substantial infrastructure costs and reinvestment may be necessary.
While the future utility of RFID tracking is well known, individual privacy concerns have also grown in parallel with the growth of information tracking. Privacy concerns exist for RFID technology because RFID devices may be woven into fabrics, embedded in all types of goods, and otherwise hidden by manufacturers in a manner not easily detected. RFID transmitters cannot be turned off. As a consequence, consumer advocates have noted that government agents or criminals employing existing technology RFID scanners may in the future approach a home or office and identify, via RFID signals, the contents, who purchased the contents, whether or not any of the contents were reported stolen or recalled, whether anyone wearing an RFID item is moving within the home or office, and in other ways conduct a warrant-less search. These concerns have caused privacy advocates to raise objections with the RFID technology.
In sum, while many infrastructure and practical concerns remain for the wide spread use of RFID technology, what is needed is a technology that bridges the gaps between known bar-code technology and the future RFID systems at the present time.
In sum, there are substantial concerns regarding the standards, technology, and privacy for RFID implementation, and it is clear that many years will pass before use of RFID wide spread.
What is needed is the capacity for easy tracking of individual goods or items now employing previously unknown item-specific information without changing the present physical infrastructure substantially, using known existing printing techniques, and easing the privacy concerns raised by the EPC™/RFID process, while enabling secure information systems to track user-identified items through changes in makeup or amount while retaining original information.